Citation Nr: 9822879
Decision Date: 07/29/98 Archive Date: 08/04/98
DOCKET NO. 95-37 977 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to an increased evaluation for hypertension, with
tachycardia, currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
A. C. Mackenzie, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from September 1963 to
February 1965.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a July 1995 rating decision issued by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in St. Louis, Missouri.
An April 1997 RO decision granted the veteran a total
disability rating based on unemployability due to service
connected disabilities, effective November 2, 1996. In a May
1997 statement the veteran requested an effective date of
September 1, 1996. The issue of entitlement to an earlier
effective date for the assignment of a total rating based on
unemployability due to service connected disabilities is
referred to the RO for its consideration.
A January 1998 RO decision denied service connection for
ocular hypertension on a secondary basis. In a statement,
received in February 1998, the veteran disagreed with this
denial. The issue of entitlement to service connection for
ocular hypertension on a secondary basis is referred to the
RO for appellate development.
REMAND
The VA has a duty to assist the veteran with the development
of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West
1991). This duty includes obtaining records of pertinent
medical treatment to which a reference has been made. See
Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). The
Board also would point out that the VA has constructive
notice of any medical records corresponding to VA treatment
and must ensure that those records are included in the record
on appeal. Such records are, in contemplation of law, before
the Board and should be included in the record. Bell v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992).
In a statement received by the RO in February 1997, the
veteran reported that he was “presently” receiving blood
pressure medications from a doctor at the Kansas City,
Missouri VA Medical Center (VAMC). He also noted that he had
received treatment and medication for “heartburn” from
“Humana Health Clinic” from 1993 to January 1997. The most
recent VA outpatient treatment report of record is from July
1996. Also, the claims file includes records from the Humana
Stadium Medical Center, in Kansas City, dated only through
May 1995. A subsequent request to this facility, from
September 1997, concerned only records from June 1997 to the
present.
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that additional
development is necessary to ensure full compliance with due
process requirements. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following action:
1. The RO should contact the Kansas City
VAMC for any records of cardiovascular
treatment of the veteran subsequent to
July 1996. With any necessary
authorization the RO should also contact
Humana Stadium Medical Center for records
of such treatment dated from May 1995 to
June 1997, and from September 1997. If
received, such records should be added to
the claims file.
2. After completion of the above
development, as well as any further
development deemed necessary in view of
the newly received records, the RO should
again adjudicate the issue of entitlement
to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent
for hypertension, with tachycardia. In
readjudicating this claim, the RO should
consider all applicable prior and revised
criteria for evaluating cardiovascular
disorders, in view of Karnas v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308, 312-13
(1991). If the determination of this
claim remains adverse to the veteran, he
and his representative should be
furnished with a Supplemental Statement
of the Case and be given an opportunity
to respond.
Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, this
case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration, if appropriate. The purpose of this REMAND is
to obtain additional development and adjudication. The Board
intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the
ultimate outcome of this case. No action is required of the
veteran unless he is notified by the RO.
MILO H. HAWLEY
Acting Member, Board of Veterans’ Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1997).
- 2 -